Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Obiasca vs.



For purpose of this dissent, the background of this controversy is as follows.

On 26 May 2003, respondent Jeanne O. Basallote was appointed to the position of Administrative
Officer II, Item No. OSEC-DECSB-ADO2-390030-1998 of the Department of Education (DepEd), Tabaco
National High School in Albay Province by City Schools Division Superintendent Nelly B. Beloso.

In a letter dated 4 June 2003,[4] cralaw the new City Schools Division Superintendent, Ma. Amy O.
Oyardo (Oyardo), advised School Principal Dr. Leticia B. Gonzales (Gonzales) that the papers of the
applicants for the position of Administrative Officer II of the school, including those of the respondent,
were being returned; and that a school ranking should be accomplished and submitted to her office for
review.In addition, Gonzales was advised that only qualified applicants should be indorsed.

The respondent assumed as Administrative Officer II on 19 June 2003.Thereafter, however, she

received a letter from Ma. Teresa U. Diaz (Diaz), Human Resource Management Officer I, City Schools
Division of Tabaco City, Albay, informing her that her appointment could not be forwarded to the CSC
because of her failure to submit the position description form (PDF) duly signed by Gonzales.

The respondent sought to obtain Gonzales signature, but the latter refused to sign despite repeated
requests. When the respondent informed Oyardo of the situation, she was instead advised to return to
her former teaching position of Teacher I.The respondent followed the advice.

In the meanwhile, on 25 August 2003, Oyardo appointed petitioner Arlin O. Obiasca to the position of
Administrative Officer II. The appointment was sent to and was properly attested by the CSC. [5] cralaw

The respondent filed a complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon against Oyardo,
Gonzales, and Diaz.

In its decision, the Ombudsman found Oyardo and Gonzales administratively liable for withholding
information from the respondent on the status of her appointment, and suspended them from the
service for three months; but Diaz was absolved of any wrongdoing. [6] cralaw

The respondent also filed a protest with the CSC Regional Office V, docketed as Adm. Case No. ND-ARU
04-290. The protest was dismissed on the ground that it should first be submitted to the Grievance
Committee of the DepEd for appropriate action. [7] cralaw

On motion for reconsideration , the protest was reinstated, but it was eventually dismissed for lack of
merit.[8] cralaw The respondent appealed the dismissal of her protest to the CSC Regional Office, which
dismissed the appeal for failure to show that her appointment had been received and attested to by
the CSC.[9] cralaw

The respondent elevated the matter to the CSC, which granted the appeal by its 29 November 2005
resolution, approving the respondents appointment and recalling its approval of the petitioners
appointment.[10] cralaw

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming that the
CSC thereby acted without factual and legal bases in recalling his appointment, and praying for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction.
Ruling of the CA

In its 26 September 2006 decision,[11] cralaw the CA denied the petition for certiorari , and upheld the
respondents appointment effective immediately upon its issuance by the appointing authority on 26
May 2003, considering that the respondent had accepted the appointment upon her assumption of the
duties and responsibilities of the position.

The CA found that the respondent possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for
the position of Administrative Officer II; that due to the respondents valid appointment, no other
appointment to the sameposition could be made without the position being first vacated; that the
petitioners appointment to theposition was thus void; and that contrary to the argument of the
petitioner that he had been deprived of his right to due process by not having been allowed to
participate in the proceedings in the CSC, it was the petitioner who had himself failed to exercise his
right by failing to submit a single pleading despite being furnished with copies of the pleadings in the
proceedings in the CSC.

The CA opined that Diaz had unreasonably refused to affix her signature on the respondents PDF and
to submit the respondents appointment to the CSC on the ground of non-submission of the
respondents PDF, because the PDF had not been required to be submitted and forwarded to the CSC.

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration , but his motion was denied on 8 February 2007.

Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari .

Issues: The petitioner maintains that the respondent was not validly appointed to the position of
Administrative Officer II, because her appointment was never attested by the CSC; that without the
attestation, the respondents appointment as Administrative Officer II was not completed and did not
vest a permanent title upon the respondent; that for that reason, the appointment might still be
recalled or withdrawn by the appointing authority; that under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V
of Executive Order (EO) No. 292 ( Administrative Code of 1987), every appointment is required to be
submitted to the CSC within30 days from the date of issuance; otherwise, the appointment becomes
ineffective;[13] cralaw that the respondents appointment issued on 23 May 2003 should have been
transmitted to the CSC not later than 22 June 2003 for proper attestation; and that because the
respondents appointment had not been sent to the CSC within the proper period, her appointment
ceased to be effective and the position of Administrative Officer II was already vacant when the
petitioner was appointed to it.

In her comment,[14] cralaw the respondent, though admitting that her appointment was not submitted
to the CSC for attestation, points out that the reason given by Oyardo for the non-submission of her
appointment papers to the CSC the failure of the respondent to have her PDF duly signed by
Gonzales was not valid because the PDF was not even a requisite for the submission of her
appointment for attestation by the CSC.